Search

In this study, the relationships between child social functioning, parenting stress, and Part C Early Intervention (EI) enrollment were examined in 227 ethnically and racially diverse, low-income families of 15- to 27-month-old children. All toddlers in the sample were identified with or at high risk for developmental delay via universal screening in primary care; 41.4% were enrolled in EI at the time of study data collection and 83.3% ultimately enrolled in EI before turning 3 years old. Generalized linear mixed model results indicated no direct relationship between EI enrollment and parenting stress, but a significant inverse association was found between child social functioning and parenting stress (β = −0.61, p = .005) that was moderated by EI enrollment ( p < .001). This suggests potential benefits of timely referral and access to EI for families of children at risk of developmental delay in historically underserved communities. Furthermore, exploratory bivariate analyses indicated that clinically elevated parenting stress related to higher worry about the child’s development and higher M-CHAT-R/F scores; EI enrollment was related to parents not working outside the home, older age of both parent and child, and lower child social functioning level.

Background The objective of this study was to assess potential challenges, prioritize adaptations, and develop an implementation and research approach to integrate and study a parenting intervention for mothers in recovery from substance use disorders in community-based home-visiting programs. Method An explanatory mixed-methods design, guided by process mapping with Failure Modes and Effects Analysis tools, and an Advisory Panel of 15 community members, identified potential implementation challenges and recommended solutions for the proposed intervention within five pre-specified domains. Thematic content analysis identified themes from detailed field notes. Results The Advisory Panel identified 44 potential challenges across all domains. They determined that the recruitment domain was most likely to create challenges. Regarding the potential challenges, two cross-domain themes emerged: (1) development of mistrust in the community and (2) difficulty initiating and sustaining engagement. Potential solutions and adaptations to protocols are reported. Conclusion Mistrust in the community was cited as a potentially important challenge for the delivery and study of an evidence-based parenting intervention for mothers in recovery through home-visiting programs. Adaptations to research protocols and intervention delivery strategies are needed to prioritize the psychological safety of families, particularly for groups that have been historically stigmatized.

In 2013, the National Institute of Mental Health funded five trials of unique, multicomponent, systems-based innovations designed to improve access to early screening, diagnosis, and treatment of autism spectrum disorder—collectively known as the Autism Spectrum Disorder Pediatric, Early Detection, Engagement, and Services Network. As part of an ongoing effort to pool data and learn from shared experience, we collected information across all studies about innovation components and implementation strategies. First, each study group completed standardized checklists based on the Template for Intervention Description and Replication and the Expert Recommendation for Implementing Change. Then, we interviewed principal and co-investigators of each study (n = 9) to further explore innovation components and assess barriers and facilitators to implementation. Innovation strategies were diverse (five different autism spectrum disorder screeners were used, 40% included early intervention trainings, 60% involved new technology). Common implementation strategies included developing stakeholder relationships and provider trainings. Barriers included inefficient systems of care, difficulty engaging families in the innovations, provider attitudes, and organizational culture (e.g. difficulty changing clinic processes). These findings suggest that—despite diverse settings and a variety of innovation content—common facilitators and challenges exist in implementing innovations to enhance access to early autism spectrum disorder screening, diagnosis, and treatment.

The purpose of this Letter to the Editor is to discuss the recent paper, “Lessons learned: Engaging culturally diverse families in neurodevelopmental disorders intervention research” by Ratto et al. Specifically, we are interested in further exploring the question of “who participates in autism spectrum disorder intervention research,” and how this question may impact interpretation of Ratto and colleagues’ paper.

Institutional review boards (IRBs) protect human research subjects by reviewing research to ensure compliance with federal regulations and institutional policies. One of the most important functions of IRBs is to ensure that investigators anticipate, plan for, and minimize risks to subjects. Under certain circumstances, however, participation in research may pose risks to nonsubject family members or other members of a subject's social network. In the context of a research protocol designed to test an intervention to prevent depression among a population of culturally diverse, urban mothers, we present two case studies of unanticipated problems, which demonstrate how nonsubject family members can either impact, or be impacted by, an individual's participation in research. The case studies illustrate the incongruence between federal regulations addressing IRB approval of research—which focus specifically on risks to subjects—and regulations on reporting incidents that occur during the conduct of the research, which extend to risks involving “others” as well. The cases also illustrate how risks to “others” can be accentuated in certain cultures where codependent family structures may increase the role that family members play in an individual's decision to participate in research. The question is raised as to whether this incongruence can inadvertently result in investigators and IRBs under-appreciating the risks that participation in research can pose to nonsubjects.

Despite its importance, there are scant guidelines to assist instructional development experts with the scenario-based training process. In particular, little information exists that links different types of human performance measures with the type of performance assessed and the purpose of training. In an effort to provide new insights on this important issue, the present study examined the appropriateness of four rating formats (i.e., checklists, frequency count, distance and discrepancy, and rating scale) for six performance outcomes, three process variables, and three purposes of scenario-based training. Expert judgments were collected via a short survey. The results indicated that for nine of the 12 variables a single measurement strategy was most appropriate. However, the results also indicated that experts tended to over rely on rating scales as their preferred choice. Implications for practice and suggested requirements for future research are provided.